Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mfs
From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: ``They'' vs. ``one'' vs. nothing
Message-ID: <291@mhuxr.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Apr-85 14:21:29 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxr.291
Posted: Mon Apr  8 14:21:29 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Apr-85 02:31:44 EST
References: <2379@randvax.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 43

> Ed Hall:
> A change needs to be made; what the language needs is a good, genderless,
> third-person singular pronoun.  In its current usage ``one'' is
> insufficient, since it bears a connotation of ``either you or me''--sort
> of a mixture of first and second persons, in terms of nuance, despite its
> using a third-person syntax.  Besides, when one uses ``one'', it makes
> one sound a bit pretentious, doesn't it?  One sounds like one is putting
> on airs...  Still, ``one'' is completely UNambiguous in terms of number;
> it is hard to come up with a word that is more forceful in insisting on
> its singular nature--a source of problems in using to indicate a
> representative of a group.
> 
From the American Heritage Dictionary (New College Edition), published 1981:

"one: (pronoun) 1) A certain person or thing; someone or something. 2) Any person
or thing; anyone or anything. 3) A single person or thing among persons or
things already known or mentioned (e.g. one of the Elizabethans) "

Also, one of the meanings given for 'one' as an adjective is:
"Designating a certain person, especially a person not previously known
or mentioned"

I don't see any "connotation of ``either you or me''" here. It seems quite
clear that 'one' is a nice, neutral, third person singular pronoun used to
isolate a single person from a group of generic persons, where not much else
about that person is known (such as sex). So where is the "need" for something
else? As for 'one' being pretentious, why is that so? You assert pretentiousness
but give no proof, no support for your assertion. Why is a perfectly good
pronoun suddenly "pretentious"? Do you feel it is incorrectly defined
(by the dictionary)?

None of the reasons Ed cites (and then demolishes) against the singular
'they' applies to my hostility to it. Simply put, the language ain't broke,
so don't fix it. People use the language incorrectly, using 'he' where something
gender neutral should be used. It is clear to me that 'one' exists
specifically for such situations. Using the singular 'they' instead introduces
needless ambiguity, and as I have argued in a previous posting, ambiguity
is not a good idea in everyday communication. So why use it? Is it not
more "natural" to use a pronoun already in wide usage, and with which
most people are at least somewhat familiar, than to force this square
peg of a singular 'they' into the round hole of gender neutrality?

Marcel Simon